Corporate Systems Publishing Pty Ltd v Lingard

Link copied
Case Copied 16 min read

CORPORATE SYSTEMS PUBLISHING PTY LTD & ANOR -v- LINGARD & ORS [2004] WASC 265



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2004] WASC 265
Case No:CIV:1788/200311 NOVEMBER 2004
Coram:PULLIN J16/12/04
11Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Plaintiffs' application dismissed
B
PDF Version
Parties:CORPORATE SYSTEMS PUBLISHING PTY LTD (ACN 009 412 622)
NICK CHRISTOU
KEITH GRAEME LINGARD
STANTON PARTNERS AUSTRALASIA PTY LTD (ACN 085 103 206)
STANTON ACCOUNTANTS & ADVISORS PTY LTD (ACN 085 059 909)
NEIL KEVIN JOYCE
DEMANDEM HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 009 258 664)
GLENLEA ENTERPRISES PTY LTD (ACN 065 274 544)

Catchwords:

Practice and Procedure
Application to re­open application for summary judgment
Previous application refused
Circumstances in which interlocutory order will be re­opened
No new point of principle

Legislation:

Nil

Case References:

Clairs Keeley (a firm) v Treacy [2004] WASCA 277
Todd v Novotny [2000] WASC 308
Turner v Bulletin Newspaper Co Pty Ltd (1974) 131 CLR 69

21st Century Promotions Australia Pty Ltd v Telstra Corp Ltd [2000] SASC 353
Bass v Permanent Trustee Co Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 334
DA Christie Pty Ltd v Baker [1996] 2 VR 582
Donaghy v Wentworth Area Health Service (No 2) [2003] NSWSC 814
Dresler v Mrish [1999] NSWSC 523
Esplanade Hotel Busselton Pty Ltd v Graywinter Properties Pty Ltd, unreported (Master Sanderson); Library No 970656; 28 November 1997
Jackson v Goldsmith [1950] 81 CLR 446
Jones v Toben [2002] FCA 1150
Mann v Capital Territory Health Commission (1982) 148 CLR 97
Nokia Corp v Truong [2004] FCA 1109
Servcorp (Australia) Pty Ltd v Abgarus Pty Ltd (1995) 38 NSWLR 281
Water Authority of Western Australia v AIL Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) (1992) 10 WAR 233

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
    IN CHAMBERS
CITATION : CORPORATE SYSTEMS PUBLISHING PTY LTD & ANOR -v- LINGARD & ORS [2004] WASC 265 CORAM : PULLIN J HEARD : 11 NOVEMBER 2004 DELIVERED : 16 DECEMBER 2004 FILE NO/S : CIV 1788 of 2003 BETWEEN : CORPORATE SYSTEMS PUBLISHING PTY LTD (ACN 009 412 622)
    First Plaintiff

    NICK CHRISTOU
    Second Plaintiff

    AND

    KEITH GRAEME LINGARD
    First Defendant

    STANTON PARTNERS AUSTRALASIA PTY LTD (ACN 085 103 206)
    Second Defendant

    STANTON ACCOUNTANTS & ADVISORS PTY LTD (ACN 085 059 909)
    Third Defendant

    NEIL KEVIN JOYCE
    Fourth Defendant

    DEMANDEM HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 009 258 664)
    Fifth Defendant


(Page 2)
    GLENLEA ENTERPRISES PTY LTD (ACN 065 274 544)
    Sixth Defendant



Catchwords:

Practice and Procedure - Application to re­open application for summary judgment - Previous application refused - Circumstances in which interlocutory order will be re­opened - No new point of principle




Legislation:

Nil




Result:

Plaintiffs' application dismissed




Category: B


Representation:


Counsel:


    First Plaintiff : Mr P G Clifford & Mr A P Rumsley
    Second Plaintiff : Mr P G Clifford & Mr A P Rumsley
    First Defendant : Mr M L Bennett & Mr M A MacLennan
    Second Defendant : Mr M L Bennett & Mr M A MacLennan
    Third…
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Corporate Systems Publishing Pty Ltd v Lingard and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2004] WASC 265
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Corporate Systems Publishing Pty Ltd v Lingard was heard by Pullin J in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The plaintiffs, Corporate Systems Publishing Pty Ltd and Nick Christou, sought to reopen an application for summary judgment against the defendants, including Keith Graeme Lingard, Stanton Partners Australasia Pty Ltd, and Stanton Accountants & Advisors Pty Ltd. The dispute originated from a restructuring of an accounting partnership in 1998, which led to the transfer of partnership goodwill to Stanton Partners, with the former partners licensing the practice for a fee. The plaintiffs argued that nearly $1.9 million was paid out of the Stanton Partners Trust contrary to the terms of the trust deed. The defendants contended that the payments were authorised by the beneficiaries and trustees of the trust, as per an agreement made in January 2002.

The legal issues before the court included whether the interlocutory order dismissing the summary judgment application should be reopened and if there were new points of principle or significant changes in circumstances warranting reconsideration. Pullin J concluded that the plaintiffs' application should not be entertained as the claims could have been raised during the initial summary judgment application. The court held that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated any new evidence or changed circumstances that would justify reopening the previous interlocutory order. Furthermore, the court found that the argument regarding the calculation of profits under the January 2002 agreement was not a new point of principle and could have been addressed in the earlier proceedings. Consequently, the plaintiffs' application was dismissed, and no further orders were made.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.